Anyway, I'm wondering if in your minds it is plausible that there could be large-scale use of tactical nuclear weapons in the Central European theater during a hypothetical NATO/Warsaw Pact conflict during the early 1970s. The scenario in question involves various PODs in the late 1960s leading to US/Soviet relations souring. The US ends up securing something resembling a victory in Vietnam and deploys more troops to Western Europe than in OTL, and there's Arab-Israeli tension. During one particular crisis both sides deploy substantial naval forces to the Eastern Mediterranean (1973...) and this leads to war with an Arab surprise attack, although it's only tactical surprise. There are some naval clashes, and soon Soviet tanks are rolling over the West German border after clashes there. The Soviets have a harder time than anticipated and end up using tacnukes (gravity bombs from fighter-bombers against major military targets) and NATO responds in kind and authorizes commanders to use their own short-ranged tactical nuclear systems, leading to one or two fairly high-level tactical strikes and lots of smaller weapons used every day. Could this lead to a stalemate in West Germany without both sides launching their strategic arsenals and destroying the Northern Hemisphere?
Tactical Nuclear War
- Thread starter Romulus Augustulus
- Start date
Hope so
I would certainly hope that both sides would pull back from the brink before the ICBM's are launched. Your POD reminds me of the movie, The Day After.
I would certainly hope that both sides would pull back from the brink before the ICBM's are launched. Your POD reminds me of the movie, The Day After.
The best POD for your scenario would be during exercise Able Archer in 1983. The world came closest to nuclear war at that point then at any other time (including 1962).
After the stupid comments by the dim witted President of the US about bombing Russia and many similar statements, the Soviet leadership were worried about American intentions. When Regan continuously whined about the superiority of Soviet nuclear capacities, when everyone in the USSR leadership knew the US was clearly superior, the hawks in the Red Army and Navy began to get serious hearings from the civilian leaders.
Regan and the secretary of Defence Casper Weinberger, made speech after speech decrying America's 'unilateral disarmament' during the 1970's and most alarming of all, arguing that the US should be prepared to fight and win a nuclear war. Combined with active support of counter-revolutionary forces throughout the world (read neo-fascist, gangsters or just plain warlords and drug barons) and massive defence spending increases for which the US is still in debt today and the state of mind created in the Kremlin can be imagined.
When Able Archer was announced (a war game exercise involving almost all of NATO's forces in Europe) some Soviet leaders were convinced it was simply a mask to an attack by the west. Some, including Marshal Ogarkov the chief of staff, urged the USSR to strike first to avoid another Barbarossa like attack or worse a sneak massive nuclear strike by the Americans.
Thanks to a strong civilian grip on the state by the communist party, the hot heads were able to bekept in check. But it was still extremely dangerous because Andropov was dying and his grip was shaky. The US leadership must have known all this from CIA briefings. While intelligence agancies have failed miserably in the post cold war period, they were extremely effective during this time because this was what they were invented for. Both the KGB and the CIA were very aware of what was happening in each other's centres of power and even leaked information to each other to ensure each knew what the other side really thought.
After the stupid comments by the dim witted President of the US about bombing Russia and many similar statements, the Soviet leadership were worried about American intentions. When Regan continuously whined about the superiority of Soviet nuclear capacities, when everyone in the USSR leadership knew the US was clearly superior, the hawks in the Red Army and Navy began to get serious hearings from the civilian leaders.
Regan and the secretary of Defence Casper Weinberger, made speech after speech decrying America's 'unilateral disarmament' during the 1970's and most alarming of all, arguing that the US should be prepared to fight and win a nuclear war. Combined with active support of counter-revolutionary forces throughout the world (read neo-fascist, gangsters or just plain warlords and drug barons) and massive defence spending increases for which the US is still in debt today and the state of mind created in the Kremlin can be imagined.
When Able Archer was announced (a war game exercise involving almost all of NATO's forces in Europe) some Soviet leaders were convinced it was simply a mask to an attack by the west. Some, including Marshal Ogarkov the chief of staff, urged the USSR to strike first to avoid another Barbarossa like attack or worse a sneak massive nuclear strike by the Americans.
Thanks to a strong civilian grip on the state by the communist party, the hot heads were able to bekept in check. But it was still extremely dangerous because Andropov was dying and his grip was shaky. The US leadership must have known all this from CIA briefings. While intelligence agancies have failed miserably in the post cold war period, they were extremely effective during this time because this was what they were invented for. Both the KGB and the CIA were very aware of what was happening in each other's centres of power and even leaked information to each other to ensure each knew what the other side really thought.
I'm fairly sure that if worst came to worst during Able Archer, there would be too high a likelihood of it escalating to an ICBM exchange.
And I think that the only areas that would sustain major damage in a tactical nuclear exchange would be areas in East and West Germany, perhaps in Poland and France as well and similar areas, not to mention areas downwind of detonations receiving fallout. I'm thinking the war would drag on for about a month and see about 150-200 fairly large warheads (up to 100kt used; at most the maximum yield of all the weapons used would be 20mt, not including small tactical nuclear weapons) and lots of smaller warheads, like the SADM and Davy Crockett and nuclear-tipped surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles, used.
And I think that the only areas that would sustain major damage in a tactical nuclear exchange would be areas in East and West Germany, perhaps in Poland and France as well and similar areas, not to mention areas downwind of detonations receiving fallout. I'm thinking the war would drag on for about a month and see about 150-200 fairly large warheads (up to 100kt used; at most the maximum yield of all the weapons used would be 20mt, not including small tactical nuclear weapons) and lots of smaller warheads, like the SADM and Davy Crockett and nuclear-tipped surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles, used.
MarkA,
You're about 30 years off. The situation you're describing about the # of nukes possessed by the US and the Soviets was in the 1960s, with the so-called "missile gap."
By the time Reagan took office, the Soviet arsenal was actually larger than that of the US (by 1/4 or 1/3).
And the Sovs put more effort into "fighting and winning a nuclear war." They established mass shelters for the population, stockpiled food, gold, and industrial gear, etc.
The US largely did not, since most Americans believed such a war was unwinnable and thus elected leaders who would not bother trying.
And I'm willing to bet the Sovs' pets during the Cold War were every bit as nasty and vicious as any American "friendly dictator" and probably more so.
You're about 30 years off. The situation you're describing about the # of nukes possessed by the US and the Soviets was in the 1960s, with the so-called "missile gap."
By the time Reagan took office, the Soviet arsenal was actually larger than that of the US (by 1/4 or 1/3).
And the Sovs put more effort into "fighting and winning a nuclear war." They established mass shelters for the population, stockpiled food, gold, and industrial gear, etc.
The US largely did not, since most Americans believed such a war was unwinnable and thus elected leaders who would not bother trying.
And I'm willing to bet the Sovs' pets during the Cold War were every bit as nasty and vicious as any American "friendly dictator" and probably more so.
Hapsburg said:
You'd be using nuclear-tipped SAMs as improvised weapons against incoming reentry vehicles and also against nuclear-armed bomber aircraft.
Max Sinister
Banned
It could escalate way too much. Westerners feared that if they used tactical nukes, the Soviets would immediately retail with strategic nukes, because "a nuke is a nuke".
Max Sinister said:
Well, from what I know of Soviet nuclear doctrine, they did in fact intend to use nuclear weapons tactically. Also, they didn't exactly have a counterpart to MAD from what I've seen...they were readier to use them. So it might be plausible, provided it stays reasonable...tacnukes, etc.
Really bloody tie, though.
PMN1 said:
Yeah. However, they might be used against attack aircraft carrying tactical nuclear warheads for use against, say, major airbases.
All in all, I guess it's okay in terms of plausibility and would be an interesting scenario to watch. The Soviets start bogging down as their advance into West Germany continues, and that leads to a few tacnukes being used, and that leads to NATO responding in kind and also lots of very small tactical warheads being used as well.
MerryPrankster said:
At no time in history was the Soviet nuclear arsenal larger than the US.
I do not understand some of what you wrote? The US certainly did elect leaders who believed they could fight and win a nuclear war - Regan, Weinberger and Shultz all said it on numerous occassions! Building shelters and bunkers was not confined to the USSR, the US and others did it too.
I am not saying the Soviet clients were all pure and good, simply that the US supported opponents no matter how bad they were and this convinced the Soviet leadership (or some of it) that the US was not serious about what it said regarding democracy abroad but would willing sacrifice its allies to defeat the USSR in a nuclear war.
MarkA said:
That isn't the case; for quite a while the Soviets had a signifcantly larger stockpile...oh, wait, are we talking about number of warheads or total yield?
Anyway, the Soviets needed more because their delivery systems were somewhat inaccurate and their warheads weren't as reliable as Western systems, so they needed more to make sure the job got done.
The Sandman
Banned
Also, the Soviets had a larger area they would have had to fry.
Honestly, the most likely occasion for use of tactical nukes would be in a situation where none of the combatants have very many; for example, if 1973 had gone worse for the Israelis, or if the Indians had had a couple of bombs in 1962. Once you have lots of nukes, the problem becomes the counterforce operations. The logical first targets in a nuclear exchange are command and control, along with nuclear delivery systems. Unfortunately, both the C&C and your aircraft bases are fairly close to (or in) major cities.
This doesn't even take into account the likelihood that the tacnuke itself would be used on or near a city if we're talking a NATO-WarPac war.
Honestly, the most likely occasion for use of tactical nukes would be in a situation where none of the combatants have very many; for example, if 1973 had gone worse for the Israelis, or if the Indians had had a couple of bombs in 1962. Once you have lots of nukes, the problem becomes the counterforce operations. The logical first targets in a nuclear exchange are command and control, along with nuclear delivery systems. Unfortunately, both the C&C and your aircraft bases are fairly close to (or in) major cities.
This doesn't even take into account the likelihood that the tacnuke itself would be used on or near a city if we're talking a NATO-WarPac war.
The Sandman said:
Yeah...I'm wondering if the scenario in question (very nasty conventional WWIII for the most part, but with tacnukes used as big conventional weapons; no strategic exchange but lots of collateral damage...)